[MPWG] Fw: [Biomass] FAO, World Bank, IMF, WTO call for end to subsidies + mandates for biofuels
Elizabeth Kirchner
ekirchner at aibs.org
Tue May 17 13:36:39 CDT 2011
Hi,
I'm glad you brought this up since the current conversation in renewable
fuels is baffling.
TreeHugger.com, searching its archives since 2008, gives many big frowny
faces to biofuel production calling EU Biofuel targets "unethical"
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/eu-biofuel-targets-unethical-says-bioethics-council.php),
but championing 2011 Mexican algae-based biofuel producer, OriginOil,
which is slated to supply 1% of that nation's jet fuel by 2016. Hmm.
Now the FAO, although it has asked developed countries to re-examine
their biofuels strategies -- which include large subsidies -- because
"these have diverted 120 million tonnes of cereals away from human
consumption to convert them to fuels," Diouf says that "Avoiding
another food crisis hinges on crop yields in the next harvest season, as
well as how economic growth impacts demand, But he also said rising food
prices and oil prices could have a detrimental effect on growth."
The new FAO study 17 February 2011 - I think?
(http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/51165/icode/) shows integrated
food and energy crops work for poor farmers. "'Farming systems that
combine food and energy crops present numerous benefits to poor rural
communities,' said Alexander Müller, FAO Assistant Director-General for
Natural Resources."
Crop diversity = good, I would say. 120 million tonnes of cereal
diverted, though...that would be bad....Is biofuel production
jeopardizing pine nut production? I'd appreciate any tie-breaking insight.
Thanks very much,
Liz
"Producing food and energy side-by-side may offer one of the best
formulas for boosting countries' food and energy security while
simultaneously reducing poverty, according to a new FAO report."
Penny's Pine Nuts wrote:
> Friends and Foresters, PCA -
>
> I thought you might find this note of interest as the food vrs. fuel
> is an issue in Nevada with our pine nuts. I hope it is discussed at
> the Agroforestry confrence in Georgia.
>
>
> *Subject:* [Biomass] FAO, World Bank, IMF,WTO call for end to
> subsidies + mandates for biofuels
>
>
>>
>> This is quite amazing!
>>
>>>
>>> *Intergovernmental organisations (including FAO, World Bank, IMF,
>>> WTO) call for end to subsidies and mandates for biofuels on grounds
>>> of food security.*
>>>
>>> See excerpt below, and page recommendation 6 (page 26) of this
>>> report: http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/05/finalg20report.pdf -
>>> ahead of G20 discussions in Paris in June.
>>>
>>> It's not been picked up up in media much (yet) - it's from a leak -
>>> but given that it's from FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World
>>> Bank, the WTO, IFPRI; this is pretty significant!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *Reducing policy conflicts between food and fuel*
>>>>
>>>> Between 2000 and 2009, global output of bio-ethanol quadrupled and
>>>> production of biodiesel increased tenfold; in OECD countries at
>>>> least this has been largely driven by government support policies.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, trade restrictions by favouring domestic sources of raw
>>>> material for biofuels do not maximise expected environmental
>>>> benefits. Biofuels overall now account for a significant part of
>>>> global use of a number of crops. On average, in the 2007-09 period
>>>> that share was 20% in the case of sugar cane, 9% for both oilseeds
>>>> and coarse grains (although biofuel production from these crops
>>>> generates byproducts that are used as animal feed), and 4% for
>>>> sugar beet.
>>>>
>>>> With such weights of biofuels supply-demand balance for the
>>>> products concerned, it is not surprising that world market prices
>>>> products (and their substitutes) are substantially higher than they
>>>> would be if no biofuels were Biofuels also influence products that
>>>> do not play much of a role as feedstocks, for example because of
>>>> the close relations between crops on both the demand side (because
>>>> of substitutability consumption) and the supply side (due to
>>>> competition for land and other inputs).
>>>>
>>>> At the international level, crop prices are increasingly related to
>>>> oil prices in a discrete manner determined by the level of biofuel
>>>> production costs. Increases in the price of oil enhance ethanol’s
>>>> competitiveness relative to petrol and strengthen its demand. Since
>>>> both energy and food/feed utilise the same input, for example grain
>>>> or sugarcane, increases in the production of ethanol reduce the
>>>> supply of food and result in increases in its price. This
>>>> relationship between the prices of oil, biofuels and crops arises
>>>> due to the fact that, in the short run, the supply of crops cannot
>>>> be expanded to meet the demand by both food and energy consumers.
>>>>
>>>> If oil prices are high and a crop’s value in the energy market
>>>> exceeds that in the food market, crops will be diverted to the
>>>> production of biofuels which will increase the price of food (up to
>>>> the limit determined by the capacity of conventional cars to use
>>>> biofuels - in the absence of flexfuel cars and a suitable
>>>> distribution network). Changes in the price of oil can be abrupt
>>>> and may cause increased food price volatility. Support to the
>>>> biofuel industry also plays a role. Subsidies to first-generation
>>>> biofuel production lower biofuel production costs and, therefore,
>>>> increase the dependence of crop prices on the price of oil. Such
>>>> policies warrant reconsideration.
>>>>
>>>> *Recommendation 6*
>>>>
>>>> * G20 governments remove provisions of current national
>>>> policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or
>>>> consumption. At the same time, governments should:
>>>> * Open international markets so that renewable fuels and feed
>>>> stocks can be produced where it is economically,
>>>> environmentally and socially feasible to do so, and traded
>>>> more freely.
>>>> * Accelerate scientific research on alternative paths to
>>>> reduced carbon emissions and to improved sustainability and
>>>> energy security.
>>>> * Encourage more efficient energy use, including in agriculture
>>>> itself, without drawing on finite resources, including those
>>>> needed for food production.
>>>>
>>>> Failing a removal of support, G20 governments should develop
>>>> contingency plans to adjust (at least temporarily) policies that
>>>> stimulate biofuel production or consumption (in particular
>>>> mandatory obligations) when global markets are under pressure and
>>>> food supplies are endangered.
>>>
>>> Press release on ICTSD:
>>>> *Leaked Report Urges G-20 Action on Food Price Volatility*
>>>> http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/106224/
>>>>
>>>> A leaked report
>>>> <http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/05/finalg20report.pdf> by top
>>>> international food security experts urges the Group of 20 leading
>>>> economies to tackle food price volatility by reforming biofuel
>>>> policies, curbing the use of agricultural export restrictions, and
>>>> rebuilding emergency food reserves.
>>>> Senior agriculture ministry officials from G-20 governments are
>>>> meeting in Paris on 11-12 May to hammer out an action plan based on
>>>> the experts’ recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> Absent from the expert report was a World Food Programme proposal
>>>> on an emergency reserve system. The new text does, however, provide
>>>> new advice on biofuel policy and an Agricultural Market Information
>>>> System (AMIS).
>>>>
>>>> The report, a collaborative effort between ten international
>>>> organisations working on food, such as the UN Food and Agriculture
>>>> Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
>>>> Development, has changed little since its previous draft version
>>>> <http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/103198/>, though some
>>>> described the analysis as more “nuanced.”
>>>>
>>>> Representatives from civil society groups are expected to air their
>>>> concerns in a 45 minute meeting on Thursday with the G-20
>>>> agriculture ‘sherpas’ who have been nominated by agriculture
>>>> ministers to attend the meeting. These representatives will draft
>>>> an action plan that agriculture ministers from the G20 will agree
>>>> to at their first ever meeting on 22-23 June.
>>>>
>>>> *Doha agreement, constraints on export restrictions targeted*
>>>>
>>>> The document recommends that the G-20 lead efforts to concluse the
>>>> Doha Round as a step towards improved trade policy and less price
>>>> volatility. Sources close to the report told Bridges that any
>>>> discussion of a “Plan B
>>>> <http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/105615/>” for Doha has been
>>>> off the table in the group’s discussions. Both the experts advising
>>>> the group and the representatives of governments have refrained
>>>> from discussing any alternatives to Doha while attempts to
>>>> resuscitate it continue.
>>>>
>>>> As in previous drafts, the experts call for a clearer definition of
>>>> a “critical food shortage,” and other conditions that allow WTO
>>>> members to limit exports under international trade law. They also
>>>> urge a focus on the particular needs of least developed and net
>>>> food importing countries. At the WTO, a recent proposal
>>>> <http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/103579/> by net-food
>>>> importing developing countries called for some strictures on the
>>>> use of export restrictions to be part of a Doha Round accord.
>>>>
>>>> Export restrictions may once again come under the spotlight since
>>>> the Financial Times reported that Glencore, a Swiss agricultural
>>>> commodity firm, made bets that Russian wheat prices would surge
>>>> ahead of a ban in 2010 on sales to buyers abroad. Representatives
>>>> of the firm had publicly called for such a ban.
>>>>
>>>> A delegate from a G-20 country in Geneva told Bridges that some
>>>> states with export interests seemed reluctant to accept the notion
>>>> of limiting the ability of countries to block exports. At least two
>>>> members of the G-20, Russia and Argentina, have instituted export
>>>> restricting measures such as taxes or bans in the past year.
>>>>
>>>> *Biofuels*
>>>>
>>>> Noting that biofuel policies may have played a role in sustaining
>>>> high prices for corn, with spillover effects into other
>>>> commodities, the authors urged G20 members to be flexible when
>>>> providing incentives for fuels derived from food crops.
>>>>
>>>> Those participating in the inter-agency meetings saw familiar
>>>> wrangling on approaches to solutions, for example, with the OECD
>>>> viewing government intervention cautiously and the FAO finding
>>>> possibly constructive roles for it.
>>>>
>>>> The report’s recommendations on biofuels say that ideally,
>>>> governments would eliminate trade restrictions on biofuels and
>>>> their feedstock, as well as blending mandates and subsidies. With
>>>> an eye to political palatability, however, the report instead
>>>> suggests that mandates be ‘automatically’ relaxed or eliminated
>>>> based on changes in an observable measure such as prices or short
>>>> term inventory forecasts. Given that such changes might prove
>>>> costly for biofuel producers and prompt demands for compensation
>>>> from their governments, the experts suggest a variety of options
>>>> such as promises to buy output from producers in times of crisis.
>>>>
>>>> In their most radical departure from the status quo, the experts,
>>>> many of them economists, envision an open market in renewable
>>>> fuels, food stocks and food-feed commodities as alternatives.
>>>> Stressing the need to ensure economically, socially and
>>>> environmentally sustainable use of resources, they foresee an
>>>> expanded role for ‘second-generation’ and newer types of biofuels,
>>>> which do not come from food crops.
>>>>
>>>> *Emergency reserves*
>>>>
>>>> The agencies preparing the report had requested a detailed proposal
>>>> from the World Food Programme for a “cost-effective system of
>>>> small, strategically positioned emergency food reserves by the end
>>>> of 2011.” Sources report that the WFP was unable to deliver this in
>>>> a timely manner. The Programme did, however, hold consultations
>>>> with academics, representatives of other international agencies and
>>>> civil society to hash out what such reserves would look like.
>>>>
>>>> The interagency report cites the huge costs and potential
>>>> inefficiencies of international physical or virtual reserves as
>>>> reasons to not endorse their impelmentation. However, the report
>>>> doesn’t suggest that individual countries be prohibited from
>>>> building such reserves.
>>>>
>>>> An observer participating in the WFP consultations said that the
>>>> Programme’s proposal was reaching beyond mere food aid. Describing
>>>> the proposal as “pre-positioned food aid plus,” meaning that it
>>>> could do more than simply provide emergency stocks held in
>>>> anticipation of need in a given country, the source believed that
>>>> the mechanism would allow national governments to smooth import
>>>> flows in times of disruptions and price spikes on international
>>>> markets. According to the source, the proposal would use a
>>>> combination of physical and virtual in-country stocks to “overcome
>>>> break downs in international markets” lasting from 30 to 90 days.
>>>>
>>>> Since much of the funding for the WFP’s working is earmarked for
>>>> aid to specific countries or for a given crop, some observers have
>>>> pointed to situations where the agency’s ability to respond to
>>>> distress calls has been limited. They argue that a system of
>>>> reserves, even at the national level, would allow the WFP a greater
>>>> degree of flexibility in preventing extreme hunger. Critics
>>>> reportedly fear that such a system could potentially expand the
>>>> role of the WFP and create an implicit international food reserve.
>>>> To date, no such proposal has made it into formal circulation
>>>> amongst the G-20.
>>>>
>>>> The WFP is expected to present a revised proposal directly to the
>>>> G-20 ahead of the agriculture ministers meeting in June but after
>>>> consulting with other international organisations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [T&E LowCarbonFuels] Digest for
>>> te_lowcarbonfuels at googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 1 Topic
>>> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 18:30:09 +0000
>>> From: te_lowcarbonfuels+noreply at googlegroups.com
>>> Reply-To: te_lowcarbonfuels at googlegroups.com
>>> To: Digest Recipients <te_lowcarbonfuels+digest at googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Topic: IGO-10 report to the G-20 calls for end to subsidies or
>>> mandates for biofuels
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/te_lowcarbonfuels/t/9e755c796995afb3>
>>>
>>> Ronald STEENBLIK <ronald.steenblik at gmail.com> May 13 06:47PM
>>> +0200 ^ <#digest_top>
>>>
>>> In unusually clear and blunt language, a report prepared by 10
>>> inter-govermental organizations (FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD,
>>> WFP, the World
>>> Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF) on "Price Volatility in
>>> Food and
>>> Agricultural Markets", leaked by the ICTSD
>>>
>>> http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/05/finalg20report.pdf
>>>
>>> Says in Recommendation 6:
>>>
>>> "G20 governments remove provisions of current national
>>> policies that
>>> subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or
>>> consumption. At the same time, governments should:
>>>
>>> � Open international markets so that renewable fuels and feed
>>> stocks can be
>>> produced where it is economically,
>>> environmentally and socially feasible to do so, and traded
>>> more freely.
>>>
>>> � Accelerate scientific research on alternative paths to
>>> reduced carbon
>>> emissions and to improved sustainability
>>> and energy security.
>>>
>>> � Encourage more efficient energy use, including in
>>> agriculture itself,
>>> without drawing on finite resources,
>>> including those needed for food production."
>>>
>>> However, it does provide an "out" in the inevitable (and, in
>>> my opinion,
>>> likely) case that G-20 governments don't remove support:
>>>
>>> "Failing a removal of support, G20 governments should develop
>>> contingency
>>> plans to adjust (at least temporarily) policies that stimulate
>>> biofuel
>>> production or consumption (in particular mandatory
>>> obligations) when global
>>> markets are under pressure and food supplies are endangered."
>>>
>>> Still, even to say that is a BIG advance in thinking, in my
>>> opinion. Note,
>>> the International Energy Agency was not one of the IGO-10.
>>>
>>> Ronald
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Biomass Opponents -- Coordinators List
>>
>> Change your settings at:
>> http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/biomass-coord_energyjustice.net
>
> Rachel Smolker
> Biofuelwatch/Energy Justice Network
> rsmolker at riseup.net <mailto:rsmolker at riseup.net>
> 802.482.2848 (o)
> 802.735 7794 (m)
> skype: Rachel Smolker
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Biomass Opponents (biomass at energyjustice.net) --
> http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/
> Change your settings or access the archives at:
> http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/biomass_energyjustice.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
> MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
> Disclaimer
> Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. Information provided for evaluation purposes only shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed for any other purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner. This communication does not form any contractual obligation on behalf of the sender, the sender's employer, or the employer's parent company, affiliates or subsidiaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110517/da1b1aa5/attachment.html>
More information about the MPWG
mailing list